"Microsoft has been absolutely pummeled in the press and in reader comments this week by pundits and customers alike. They feel cheated by the amount of free storage space available to them on the new line of Surface Pro devices. But is that criticism fair or even valid?" Spoiler alert: turns out, it isn't. Both devices have about the same free space available, and by creating a USB restore drive for Windows on the Surface, you can actually get a little more on the Surface Pro. Interestingly enough, Microsoft confirmed on Reddit that their original numbers - which caused the ruckus - were wrong, because they were based on pre-production hardware, with debug code and other additional stuff on it. Oh Microsoft.

Initial reports out regarding available disk space were conservative (eg. 23GB available on 64GB and 83GB available on the 128GB system), however our final production units are coming in with ~6-7GB additional free space.

So instead of 23GB free on the 64GB version, we now get 30GB free. So still less than half of the drive available for the user! I'm sorry, but that is still wholly unacceptable. They should advertise it prominently as a 23-30GB usable drive, period. To do any less is deceptive.

Also, how is 'oh those were numbers for the pre-production device, the numbers for the production device are higher!' an acceptable explanation?

If the hardware was handled by one division, and the numbers came from someone in another division, then obviously communication between the two divisions within Microsoft is lacking or non-existent. If both the hardware and it's specs came from the same division, then Microsoft has employees so incompetent that they can't grasp the technology well enough to post the right numbers, or simply don't care enough to bother.

Not to mention the 'those were the wrong specs, here are the right ones' smells like a belated attempt at corporate damage control, and like a bait and switch shell game - promise one thing, deliver another, pretend surprise at customer outrage, backpedal and try to satisfy customers with explanations.

I was speaking strictly of the "64GB" Surface Pro specifically because it's such a big deal at that level. The 128GB version is basically no different from the MacBook Air's situation, and even though the lost space sucks there too, at least it's a useable amount left over and wasn't relevant to my point.

I do feel Microsoft and Apple should be more upfront with the actual available storage capacities on all their ultraportables. It's just galling that the customer is buying something labeled as 64GB and getting at best 30GB. If my Nexus S phone had come with ~7GB free out of the 16GB eMMC on board I would have passed.

"If my Nexus S phone had come with ~7GB free out of the 16GB eMMC on board I would have passed.

Then definitely don't upgrade to a Nexus 4. Only ~12GB free on the 16GB advertised storage available plus starts to crawl when it fills up ( "

That is still the majority of free space dedicated to the user. The 64GB Surface a massive minority (the 128 has more acceptable ratios). One should note that even the 8GB Nexus 4 has about 5.5GB dedicated to the user (the 16 actually has 13.33GB)

"Initial reports out regarding available disk space were conservative (eg. 23GB available on 64GB and 83GB available on the 128GB system), however our final production units are coming in with ~6-7GB additional free space.

So instead of 23GB free on the 64GB version, we now get 30GB free. So still less than half of the drive available for the user! I'm sorry, but that is still wholly unacceptable. They should advertise it prominently as a 23-30GB usable drive, period. To do any less is deceptive. "

Can't these little marketing suckers from Microsoft just rebrand the deceptive 64 GB (Holy Hell, f--king 64 GB bloated !) into a more reasonable 16 GB version and the obese 128 GB (huge number with more FAT (c) Microsoft) into a more understandable 64 GB version ? It's just a matter of perception, and people WILL gets pleased to find 23 GB free on the "16 GB" version and 83 GB free on the "64 GB" one...

Can't these little marketing suckers from Microsoft just rebrand the deceptive 64 GB (Holy Hell, f--king 64 GB bloated !) into a more reasonable 16 GB version and the obese 128 GB (huge number with more FAT (c) Microsoft) into a more understandable 64 GB version ? It's just a matter of perception, and people WILL gets pleased to find 23 GB free on the "16 GB" version and 83 GB free on the "64 GB" one...

They should, especially since the ratio between the OS and user data is so unbalanced. Imagine you buy a 64 GB USB disk, right now you really get 59.6 GiB usable. Minus some factory installed software, you get basically 93% of advertised space.

On the 64 GB Surface, you get 33% of advertised space, 61% on the 128 GB version. As a user I don't give a fuck at what decided manufacturers to trick the numbers, I fell somewhat cheated. Because you cannot expect the OS to take so much space, I got used of such software located in NAND flash or ROM.

I'd like to have them mention both the size of the installed SSD and the available free space with the factory install.

Also, honestly, if so much space is already gone because of the system, then maybe they should never have sold it with such a small SSD. 64GB for recent Windows versions is really small, even if you would only use it for a system drive!

Of course, there's always taking advantage of the fact that they control the firmware, and making it grab from the internet...

Yeah, and that would have an additional advantage. They could force users to update when they reinstall, if they want to add some "feature." Apple already did this with new Macs. You can make a restore dvd or USB stick with the entire os image on it if you so desire, but by default the recovery partition is only 2 gb. It contains a minimal install, which then gets the rest from the internet. However, they surprisingly haven't yet begun to use this system to force updates on to a reinstalled machine, unless you have voluntarily updated the recovery partition image (not the easiest thing to do unless an official update for it was offered or you've installed a new major OS X release).

Given no media, I'd rather have it a restore partition than it be able to go to the internet.

Seeing as how Windows 8 can install in 15 minutes off of a DVD, it'll take more than 35 minutes just to download (if you're getting 2MB per second. I wish I got that kind of speed consistently). I'd rather have the space reserved.

I personally would rather have Microsoft (or whatever manufacturer is doing this) spring a couple of bucks and include an USB key with the recovery data, than having then waste almost 1/3 of the space on the device just so they can keep their profit margins as high as possible.

So would I, though the recovery partition is probably only 20% at the most (A Windows 8 DVD is 3.5GB) or so of the used space, and I did say "Given no media..." at the top.
Media is preferable, though.

Given no media, I'd rather have it a restore partition than it be able to go to the internet.

Seeing as how Windows 8 can install in 15 minutes off of a DVD, it'll take more than 35 minutes just to download (if you're getting 2MB per second. I wish I got that kind of speed consistently). I'd rather have the space reserved.

I can see why they'd do this for most users, although I still must wonder why said recovery partition is taking up as much space as it is given the size of both Windows 7 and Office before installation. For me however, I generally do not need to reinstall my os unless the drive fails and, at that point, a recovery partition isn't exactly going to do me much good. I prefer recovery media and, at least with X86/64 machines (both PC and Macs) creating media and removing the recovery partition is still a choice I can make.

IIRC, Windows 7 is 10GB, Office 2010 another 10GB. That is at most 20 GB. Where are the other 12 GB?

No need to add all available drivers for win7. A complete installation with everything that is included on the desktop is also not neccesary. IMHO it should be easy to squeeze them together in less than 10Gb.
Any other combination of OS and Office Suit fits in that size.

I don't like the recovery partitions. What happens if the disk gets broken? Bye bye recovery. Then search the correct Windows version to install , activation... A separate media is preferable. Not every user makes the "Make a recovery media" steps after buying a computer.

In the mellow land of free software, 20GibiBytes of disk space will give you a much more versatile stack of software, all at NIL cost. That would include (here on my debian box) f.e.
- 2 office suites (libreoffice, gnume office apps, personal finances, small business management, ...)
- graphics software (pixel, vector, 3D, CAD)
- local no-hassle dictionaries (various language freedicts, encyclopedia)
- multimedia/studio soft (synthesizer, tracker, sound editors, video editing, optical disc backup-ripping, format conversion, ..)
- server stack (web server, mail server, tor hub, ....)
- development toolchains for a dozen languages (compilers, debuggers, IDEs, revision control, hex editors, cross-arch stuff, virtualizing, ....)
- loads of games (logic+card games, arcade, platform, 3D ego shooter, racing....)
- edutainment (kids stuff, math soft, geography, desktop globe, ...)
- windows virtualizing and emulation solutions
- BSOD (bluescreen of death) and a zillion other fantastic screensavers
... and loads of other stuff.. on a stable system architecture that
- does not AGE (no registry cruft, proper package management)
- can easily be kept up-to-date and secure
- can not only be backuped, but migrated to other hardware or converted into a live USB system with little effort
- has decent support for (multi)touch devices
.--... oh yeah, it's free, too.. and it doesn't tell you what NOT to do (you can rename a file that is being played! how awesome is that), and the source code to change or fix the software in any way you want to.. and contribute it back!
Since I left the windows world nearly ten years ago, my computing experience has greatly improved, for which I am thankful, and contributing back.. screw the world of shareware, commercial demos, proprietary vendor-lock-in-software + incompatible file formats, zombie trojans, spyware and registry corruption....

And none of my linux installations killed its own boot sector. Ever. L0l.. All our bash are belong to us, for we can has ro0t Ã—)

..probably that most hardware vendors do a pretty poor job supporting operating-system-choice?
I do not claim FLOSS/*n*x is the better solution for every hardware, every use-case and every user.
But for me, my machine and my computing needs - I just love it
..oh and my mum seems to get along well with it, too.

I think you're either getting your timeline confused, or just being a dick intentionally. At the time I made the comment you jumped in on, I wasn't aware of Windows also causing bricking on those laptops; indeed, you brought it to my attention. I didn't go back and change anything; my comment stood on the knowledge I had at the time.

You are the one being disingenuous, claiming that I said what I did about Samsung and Linux with prior knowledge of Windows issues on those machines. Either get your shit straight or piss off. I don't care either way, child.

Review what you told, admitely without knowing, what I answered you, and what you finally wrote. You're angry with some people and you think that reading news is going to relax you, but insulting other people won't solve the problem. You'd better get professional help. You won't achieve a response from me, I don't answer people that talk like you are doing.

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis! I didn't realize I was getting free health care here. Now that that's out of the way, let's take a look at how disjointed you really are.

Review what you told, admitely without knowing,

Already done, and this time you acknowledge that I had not seen the articles about Windows causing issues, instead of blindly assuming that I knew about it and was being deceptive. Thanks!

what I answered you,

Here we go: The first punch. You were the first to get angry, being snarky and making assumptions instead of approaching from a proper standpoint. Something like "did you know this?" instead of "as if you didn't know this!". It seems like a small difference but it's all about the attitude. And frankly, yours stinks.

and what you finally wrote.

And so I responded in kind, as I am wont to do. Let that sink in for a minute: You wouldn't have gotten a negative reaction from me if you hadn't tried to. I've been here a very long time, I have a consistent history as a commenter, and the few times you see me being that negative it's always to put a troll in her place.

You're angry with some people

No, just annoyed when trolled.

you think that reading news is going to relax you

Just part of my daily routine, that has the occasional speed bump like you in it. I just drive over you and move on.

but insulting other people won't solve the problem.

Once again, just responding in kind. You call me a liar, it opens the doors to me calling you how I see you. If you don't like it, grow up a few years and come back to the Internet when you're mature enough to handle it.

You'd better get professional help.

Once more, I do appreciate the health advice, but I know you're really just trying to insult me. It's kind of pathetic though; using mental illness in an internet fight is one of the lowest forms of insult and in the end you just look like a prick who thinks that anyone who acts differently from you is mentally ill. Not only is that grossly narcissistic, it's an insult to those who really are seeking help. Don't be a dick to others just because you're mad at one person, that's a bully's way and you are definitely a bully.

You won't achieve a response from me, I don't answer people that talk like you are doing.

I'm sure you won't, you accomplished your goal of singling out one person and trolling the hell out of them. I honestly don't know why I still follow through with these; maybe I'm just not right in the head.

ZDNet writes: "Of course, neither device can compare to a tablet or phone OS in terms of efficiency. Tablet operating systems are designed to be small, and they sacrifice all sorts of capabilities that you expect in a full-strength PC. But if you're going to complain about operating systems using too much of the available storage, you'd better make sure your letter to Redmond is cc'ed to Cupertino."

This is wrong. Not only tablet or phone OSes are smaller, but also full blown desktop OS can be much, much smaller. Yes, of course I am speaking about Linux. 2 GB will give you a nice systems with all the bells & whistles plus a great selection of apps.

And about the dishonesty, the food industry has solved this many centuries ago, by introducing the concepts Gross and Net. If I buy a pack of flour, sugar, pasta or whatever, I am not interested in the gross weight; I want to know how much USABLE stuff I get. It's called the NET WEIGHT.

Not only tablet or phone OSes are smaller, but also full blown desktop OS can be much, much smaller. Yes, of course I am speaking about Linux. 2 GB will give you a nice systems with all the bells & whistles plus a great selection of apps.

You can go even smaller than that. I've had a fully functional, GUI driven modern desktop OS via Tiny Core Linux that was less than 500MB. And that was with a ton of third party apps that didn't ship with the original, internet-capable GUI driven 10MB live image.

The thing is, Windows and Mac OSes have grown larger and larger over the years yet the return via new features isn't matching it. In my experience, OS X has included a lot of great features with each release, especially compared to Windows, but still not nearly enough to warrant the wasted drive space.

No, Apple and Microsoft are trying too hard to shoehorn a full desktop OS experience onto limited devices that don't really need it. Where is the MacBook Air with a touchscreen running iOS? Why not just leave the Surface Pro with RT and slim that OS down some? That's what I'd like to see.